Citizenship and Immigration committee  No. The board's jurisdiction is limited to those cases that are not described in subsection 112(3) of the act.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The example you're giving is one where the person is inadmissible on serious criminality, human rights violations, etc.—

Citizenship and Immigration committee  —so the board, on a pre-removal risk assessment application, does not have jurisdiction. That jurisdiction remains with the minister. If the minister is misled by the person's information—fraud or misrepresentation—then the minister retains with respect to those cases the authority to vacate his or her decision.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  This amendment retains the same power for the minister, with respect to the minister's decisions, as the minister has now. What the overall changes to the legislation would do, in these motions, would be to take away from the minister the authority to make decisions on applications for protection for those persons who are not described in subsection 112(3).

Citizenship and Immigration committee  No, we're not.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The amendment specifically refers to persons described in subsection 112(3). Those are the cases that will be retained within the jurisdiction of the minister—serious criminals, human rights violators. It is those who are excluded from refugee protection under article 1F of the refugee convention.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Subsection 114(2), which we are not amending in these motions, refers to cases under subsection 112(3) that remain within the scope of the minister's jurisdiction, where the circumstances that gave rise to the stay of removal have changed. So the person may still be inadmissible for serious criminality and there might still be some risk in the country of origin, but the minister concludes that the balance of risk to the individual and danger to the Canadian public has shifted.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm an employee of the department, not of the board.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The IRB will have procedural rules for the submission of information with respect to pre-removal risk assessments, as they have for everything else.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The person who has information with respect to their case can submit it to the decision-maker. If it's urgent, then the information can certainly be sent by facsimile or by an e-mail attachment. There are ways to get information to a decision-maker at the last minute. Now, if the decision has already been made, it may be too late, but the burden is on the individual, with the assistance of any counsel they engage, to ensure that the decision-maker is up to date with respect to their particular circumstances.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  My colleague pointed out that of course if there is a last-minute situation of the type you've described, you and the constituent can certainly ask Canada Border Services Agency for a deferral of the removal until the board has had an opportunity to look at this new evidence.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  There's nothing in the legislation today about the role of members of Parliament in any of the decision-making responsibilities under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These are all administrative arrangements that are put in place. In the decision-making process, the person has the right to make any submissions of evidence or information they wish.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  From the individual decision-maker on a case or from the manager?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Okay. I didn't know that.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The act will not prevent a person--